[News] Coyotes on the Verge of Being Locked Out

[GioforPM]

I doubt it's legislation the teams been in a mess for too long and so has their government. Perhaps he's overtied to some market analysis. I mean, the general area is attractive. I'd actually like to see Tempe given a shot before completely throwing in the towel.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://twitter.com/user/status/1469362834433785862

Glendale: we want you to pay what you need to pay
Bettman: Glendale has an agenda against the Coyotes


alright then.

[powderjunkie]

I think the simplest answer might be Vegas and Seattle expansion fees. Though I'm not sure that relocation fees and a stronger market without adding a slice to the pie isn't a better deal for the owners...except expansion may have done more to drive the impression of higher franchise values across the board.

I don't recall details about the Glendale lease, but clearly it was a bad enough deal for the city to opt-out (at the earliest opportunity?). Is Tempe going to be any sweeter?

Houston or KC makes a lot more sense at this point given divisional alignment...which isn't a big concern, but the reasons for staying list is a lot shorter now than it was a few years ago.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

That's what I can't stand Bettman and pine for the NHL of the 1980s.

Which is fair enough. I wasn't alive for the 80's but it seemed pretty rad, you had top level Canadian teams battling it out for the Cup every year, sometimes against each other in the finals. I've never seen a Canadian team win in my lifetime. While southern expansion has certainly done its job of expanding revenues for the league I think you can draw a clear line from the entry of all these warm weather, largely no state tax cities, and the complete neutering of Canadian teams. What happened right around or immediately after the last Canadian cup win in 93? Enter Florida, Tampa, Anaheim, Nashville, Jets to Arizona, North stars to Dallas, Whalers to Raleigh, San Jose, etc. Statistically we should expect to see a Canadian team in the cup finals every two years, with a win every 4. Instead it's almost been 30 years since a win and the only reason we're not looking at 10 seasons and counting without a finals appearance is because of the wonky playoff format last year. For Canadian fans all this expansion has been a disaster, our largest cities can barely compete as markets for teams, and the cities that do have teams have a tough time retaining talent. If I was Murray Edwards, and god willing someday I will be, I'd be trying to carve out special exemptions for Canadian teams in the next CBA in terms of contracts and terms we can sign players to, this stretch of ineptitude is getting ridiculous.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I wasn't alive for the 80's but it seemed pretty rad, you had top level Canadian teams battling it out for the Cup every year, sometimes against each other in the finals..

I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread other than to confirm that the 80s were indeed rad

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

He gets credit for them staying. All the small-market Canadian teams would have folded or relocated long ago if not for the salary cap.

Bettman had nothing whatever to do with the Winnipeg and Quebec teams leaving Canada. He was powerless to stop them, because absolutely no one wanted to own an NHL team in those cities at that time. And that was because they had old arenas (which he had no power to replace), weak economies (which he had no power to strengthen), and small populations (which he had no power to increase), at a time when player salaries were rapidly increasing (which started before he had anything to do with the NHL, and continued until he could persuade the owners and PA to accept a salary cap). The only thing he had to do with those relocations is that he was commissioner at the time they happened.

I bet you think Justin Trudeau is personally to blame for COVID because it happened while he was in power.

Bettman was hired to make as much money as he can for the NHL Owners. he has done a masterful job of that. He hasn't done anything to really help hockey in Canada. Somehow he was powerless to do anything for Canadian teams, but he has all the resources to save Arizona over and over.

If it wasn't for the salary cap, many teams would have folded - not just Canadian teams.

I'm not sure why you think Justin Trudeau has something to do with this issue.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Bettman was hired to make as much money as he can for the NHL Owners. he has done a masterful job of that. He hasn't done anything to really help hockey in Canada. Somehow he was powerless to do anything for Canadian teams, but he has all the resources to save Arizona over and over.

Many posters have chimed in and explained to you a lot of the things Bettman did for Canadian teams. Did you read any of it?

As for Arizona, it's blatantly obvious why he wasn't letting that franchise move. At present there are 1.15 billion reasons shared among 30 NHL owners.

The only franchise relocation since the salary cap was Atlanta moving to Winnipeg. That was an easy one to allow, because it did not take away a viable expansion market. Nobody was paying $500 million like Vegas or $650 million like Seattle to put a team in Winnipeg. Bettman's mission was to make it impossible for anybody to get a team in a prime new market without paying through the nose to the whole league. Mission accomplished.

If it wasn't for the salary cap, many teams would have folded - not just Canadian teams.

So what? Are you figuring that it doesn't count unless it's good for Canadians and bad for everyone else?

I'm not sure why you think Justin Trudeau has something to do with this issue.

You are the one who thinks Bettman is to blame for everything that happened while he was commissioner. By your logic, Trudeau is to blame for everything that has happened while he was PM.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by devo22

Glendale: we want you to pay what you need to pay
Bettman: Glendale has an agenda against the Coyotes


alright then.

Glendale built the team an arena. Then in subsequent years bent over backwards to help ensure the teams viability, most notably by trying to help facilitate a sale to Hulsizer that saw the city paying $100M for parking rights they likely already owned, and $97M to operate the arena (which was absolutely insane). But we’re it not for city concessions made at the last minute, the Coyotes would have been on their way back to Winnipeg and the NHL would be in the disastrous position of having the Thrashers with no landing spot.

So after multiple ownership changes, cuts to city services because of fiscal mismanagement (in no small part because of everything involving the arena and stadium and mall), and now dealing with unpaid taxes and fees they are finally fed up.

Glendale has been the biggest sucker in North American sports, a landscape not short of municipalities taken advantage of. The city is the only reason the Coyotes have stayed in the market to its own detriment. And Bettman is saying they have the agenda? What a piece of ####.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think the simplest answer might be Vegas and Seattle expansion fees. Though I'm not sure that relocation fees and a stronger market without adding a slice to the pie isn't a better deal for the owners...except expansion may have done more to drive the impression of higher franchise values across the board.

I don't recall details about the Glendale lease, but clearly it was a bad enough deal for the city to opt-out (at the earliest opportunity?). Is Tempe going to be any sweeter?

Houston or KC makes a lot more sense at this point given divisional alignment...which isn't a big concern, but the reasons for staying list is a lot shorter now than it was a few years ago.

Your first point is dead on. You maintain franchise value (and therefore expansion fees) by ensuring scarcity.

I’m quite certain that the NHL has analysis that supports the dilution of an extra franchise is more then compensated by increased revenues.

If franchises don’t move you leave expansion fees as the only option. And with the latest Forbes analysis, it’s pretty clear that Bettman has done well by his owners.

Salary cap
Stabilized franchises
Sweet arena deals


To be an NHL owner…

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by looooob

I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread other than to confirm that the 80s were indeed rad

Oh, they were Rad alright. I have the movie poster to prove it.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Oh, they were Rad alright. I have the movie poster to prove it.

Starring Lori Loughlin and Bingo!

[getbak]

Back in the day when "You know that was filmed in Calgary?" applied to Superman 3, Rad, and some Don Johnson bomb.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Glendale built the team an arena. Then in subsequent years bent over backwards to help ensure the teams viability, most notably by trying to help facilitate a sale to Hulsizer that saw the city paying $100M for parking rights they likely already owned, and $97M to operate the arena (which was absolutely insane). But we’re it not for city concessions made at the last minute, the Coyotes would have been on their way back to Winnipeg and the NHL would be in the disastrous position of having the Thrashers with no landing spot.

The Quebec arena deal was essentially finalized (though construction not yet started) before the ATL-WPG move was announced...a team could have played a few seasons in the Colisée until it was ready. Or Portland, KC, Houston, or a number of other possiblities if it came down to it.

Sub-optimal? Sure...but not more disastrous than the last decade in the desert.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Your first point is dead on. You maintain franchise value (and therefore expansion fees) by ensuring scarcity.

I’m quite certain that the NHL has analysis that supports the dilution of an extra franchise is more then compensated by increased revenues.

If franchises don’t move you leave expansion fees as the only option. And with the latest Forbes analysis, it’s pretty clear that Bettman has done well by his owners.

Salary cap
Stabilized franchises
Sweet arena deals


To be an NHL owner…

For sure to the bolded, but each option has it's own pros/cons, and obviously there are diminishing returns at some point. The order they've chosen makes tons of sense. But now, the list of reasons to resist relocations is a lot shorter than it was before.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

For sure to the bolded, but each option has it's own pros/cons, and obviously there are diminishing returns at some point. The order they've chosen makes tons of sense. But now, the list of reasons to resist relocations is a lot shorter than it was before.

Emphatically agreed.

The NFL has 32 teams, NBA 30, MLB 30, and none of those leagues are reportedly looking to expand any further. The logistics of expanding a league beyond that size make it more trouble than it's worth, especially since there are only so many profitable markets to go around. I don't see the NHL expanding beyond 32 teams at any time in the foreseeable future. But there are still one or two markets (ahem, Houston) that they would like to put a team in, and that will only happen by relocation.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Glendale built the team an arena. Then in subsequent years bent over backwards to help ensure the teams viability, most notably by trying to help facilitate a sale to Hulsizer that saw the city paying $100M for parking rights they likely already owned, and $97M to operate the arena (which was absolutely insane). But were it not for city concessions made at the last minute, the Coyotes would have been on their way back to Winnipeg and the NHL would be in the disastrous position of having the Thrashers with no landing spot.

The thing is, none of that happened under the current owners. Larry Ellman swindled Glendale by offering them a dazzling vision of a lucrative entertainment district swarming with hockey fans and tourists, which he of course had no ability to deliver. They built the arena and gave him a lot of cheap real estate to build on.

He then turned around and sold the hockey team and arena lease to the hapless Jerry Moyes, thus getting rid of the money-losing operation while keeping the land for himself. It would have been a perfect swindle, except that the land was worth money in the long term and Ellman got wiped out in the short term. He never made it past the banking crisis of 2008. Meanwhile, Moyes put his white elephant into bankruptcy and it was eventually taken over by the league.

Glendale lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the arena-district boondoggle, but the current owners of the Coyotes are not responsible for that. The league sold the franchise to Renaissance Sports and Entertainment, who sold it to Andrew Barroway, who sold most of it to Alex Meruelo. Meruelo acquired the team just in time to be punched in the teeth by the pandemic. He has done nothing but lose money on his investment, and now Glendale is kicking him out of the arena, in essence, because of the sins and crimes of all the owners before him.

There are no heroes in this story. There are plenty of villains. The only real victims are the taxpayers of Glendale, who were defrauded out of hundreds of millions of dollars when their idiot city council fell for the original real estate scam.

The sad thing is that this is nothing new for the NHL. Swindles, scams, bad debts, bankruptcies, shady owners who promised big things but couldn't pay their bills – we've seen it all many times before, going right back to the founding of the league in 1917. This is just the first time that all the disasters have happened to the same franchise.

The NHL, in fact, was founded on a swindle. The team owners from its predecessor league wanted to kick the Toronto Blueshirts and their owner, Eddie Livingstone, out of the league without compensation, and steal all his players for themselves. That was blatantly illegal, so they worked around the law by quitting the league and starting a new one without him. They ended up selling the players and a new franchise for cash on the nail to the Toronto Arena Company, which promptly won the Stanley Cup with Livingstone's players. Of course the NHL did not give Livingstone any of the proceeds from that sale. Livingstone sued the company and won; the company filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying the damages. The cases dragged on in the courts for a full decade.

Wherever he is now, Eddie Livingstone must be shaking his head and saying: ‘Silly Glendale. I could have told you not to go into business with these jokers.’

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

He has done nothing but lose money on his investment, and now Glendale is kicking him out of the arena, in essence, because of the sins and crimes of all the owners before him.

They’re kicking him out because they’ve been pumping in hundreds of millions over the years then had a new owner who wasn’t paying his taxes and started negotiating a new arena deal somewhere else. Those are his sins and his alone.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

They’re kicking him out because they’ve been pumping in hundreds of millions over the years then had a new owner who wasn’t paying his taxes and started negotiating a new arena deal somewhere else. Those are his sins and his alone.

Negotiating a new arena deal somewhere else is a sin now, is it? I suppose if the team gets sold and the new owners move it to Houston, they won't be allowed to have an arena there either?

How much money Glendale wasted before Meruelo bought the Coyotes is not his problem. As I outlined above, the city council inflicted those losses on themselves when they bought into a phony get-rich-quick scheme.

The taxes I agree about. I suspect the well was so badly poisoned by the eviction notice that Meruelo had his people withhold the tax payments out of pure spite. Not an intelligent reaction, and certainly not an ethical one, but a comprehensible one.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Negotiating a new arena deal somewhere else is a sin now, is it?

It is when it is in the same market and you only have a year left on your lease with no exit strategy.

How much money Glendale wasted before Meruelo bought the Coyotes is not his problem. As I outlined above, the city council inflicted those losses on themselves when they bought into a phony get-rich-quick scheme.

It is his problem, because he bought a team that has been subsidized both directly and indirectly for over a decade to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, who plays in an arena the city owns and has all that baggage with it as a result. If he didn’t think it was his problem, it helps explain why him and the Coyotes are in the predicament they’re facing at the end of the season.

A near bankrupt city fed up with an unreliable ownership carousel is tapped out after propping up a money losing team for so long with an arena that will be cheaper to operate without a hockey team. That’s what he bought into and got into business with. And you don’t think that’s his problem?

The taxes I agree about. I suspect the well was so badly poisoned by the eviction notice that Meruelo had his people withhold the tax payments out of pure spite. Not an intelligent reaction, and certainly not an ethical one, but a comprehensible one.

It was mostly state taxes, dating back to June before the eviction notice, so that doesn’t hold up. Glendale’s taxes were on top of the half a million of rent that wasn’t paid last year as well (also before an eviction notice).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

It is when it is in the same market and you only have a year left on your lease with no exit strategy.

So what, they were supposed to stay in Glendale and continue to lose tens of millions a year? Not having an exit strategy means you're not allowed to come up with an exit strategy ever?

It is his problem, because he bought a team that has been subsidized both directly and indirectly for over a decade to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, who plays in an arena the city owns and has all that baggage with it as a result. If he didn’t think it was his problem, it helps explain why him and the Coyotes are in the predicament they’re facing at the end of the season.

Legally, it isn't his problem, because he bought it from an owner who bought it from an owner who bought it out of bankruptcy. The debts of the team prior to the bankruptcy are not the debts of the current owner.

A near bankrupt city fed up with an unreliable ownership carousel is tapped out after propping up a money losing team for so long with an arena that will be cheaper to operate without a hockey team. That’s what he bought into and got into business with. And you don’t think that’s his problem?

Legally, it isn't his problem. It isn't his problem practically either, as Glendale has no way of making him pay for their prior losses.

If some jerk runs you over with his car and then sells the car, that does not give you the right to sue the new owner of the car.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So what, they were supposed to stay in Glendale and continue to lose tens of millions a year? Not having an exit strategy means you're not allowed to come up with an exit strategy ever?

Glendale was supposed to keep losing millions a year after losing hundreds of millions over the course of the lease agreements? It's not their problem the Coyotes don't have an exist strategy ready. They've only been talking about it since 2017 when Bettman said the team cannot and will not remain in Glendale when the first talk of a new arena elsewhere in the market started. Maybe Meruelo should have thought about that before not paying rent and taxes while looking for a new arena deal in the middle of lease negotiations.


It's been an antagonistic business relationship for years. Meruelo continued that and exacerbated it. Glendale isn't going to keep resetting because of numerous ownership changes.

Legally, it isn't his problem, because he bought it from an owner who bought it from an owner who bought it out of bankruptcy. The debts of the team prior to the bankruptcy are not the debts of the current owner.


Legally, it isn't his problem. It isn't his problem practically either, as Glendale has no way of making him pay for their prior losses.

If some jerk runs you over with his car and then sells the car, that does not give you the right to sue the new owner of the car.

Like I said, if he thought the previous ownership's problems and dealings with the city of Glendale wouldn't become his own and affect how operations occur going forward, it's why he's facing the situation he is. He can take solace in knowing it legally isn't his problem as they're packing up the admin offices wondering where they're going to play in September.